The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1887-02-24
Gentlemen OF tic .jH,55:

Gentlemen ~ tie .H,Y:
/. The indie. saefs' 81 ts',a Gaze ehar-e'
the defendant with .tecriae II nsarlaro
the first degree. which ip"c!@es Two ntlc
crimes known IL our law. namely. m.I'dcI
OF the second degree asa ni"nelaugi!er
and under our iaw the defendant may bC
convicted on this t3lai ri eIfiisf 81 siici
crimes, if the evidence ~ sufficient to jas
tify it.
Q. Whoever kills 4 hlrlan heir4 will
malice aforetiIouGllt. c.the- express or i'm
piled, IS guilty OF murder, hy which Il
meant murder OF tie second degree.
3. The unlawful killing OF Il I'unal
being without maiice aioltthougi i
manslanghter.
4. The Indictment il this case charges
the killing to have been done wililil". dc.
liberately, with reconciliation, AMI with
malice aforethonght: which constitutes
murder OF the first degree.
s. Thus you have tAetl;ee crimes coy.
cred by the indictment defined for YOU
namely: That tie unlawful killing OF g
human being without malice atofefhought
is manslaughter. The killing Of Il human
being with malice aforethou9as IS murder
Of the second degree: and II You add to
the malice aforcthongat. which II es-
eential to murder III tire second degree
that the killing was willful, deliberate and
premeditated, then sou have murder ol
the first degree.
6. The defendant pleads that ne IS not
guilty OF any of the crimes winch | have
enumerated, and ION are to So regard him
until, by the evidence, your minds are sat.
listed beyond reasonable doubt OF his
guilt; and the burden OF establishing sucL
guilt is upon the state.
Z. Guided by these instructions, you
should diligently and fairly examine thu
testimony to ascertain II the defendant II
guilty OF any Of the crimes which | have
defined Tor you; that is. murder oil the first
degree, murder of tho second degree, al
manslaughter. And il yon iind that he Is
guilty. then you must determine which 81
such crimes he is guilty Of.
8. Testimony has been admitted before
you as to statements made by the def1nd
ant while in custody of the sheriff. Snci
evidence is, as to statements niaae by the
defendant while under arrest. and know
ing that the crime was imputed 10 HIM
and under the law they can only be con.
sidered when voluntarily made that IL
when noe under fear, prompted 10y threats
Or hope inspired by promises. The!
must be free and voluntary. And yon are
instructed to carefullyconsider the circum'
stances under which such statements were
made rs disclosed by the evidence. And
IL you believe that they were not yollnta
~. that is, il You believe they We're made
under threats or promises, however slight
then you must entirely disregard such
A. r., !. II -lKfn ~
that II such statements were made under
threats or promises, they can still be con
sidered by you for what they tire worth
and that the fact OF their being 50 obtain
ed only goes to their value It's evidence
but all OF such statements must be entire
" disregarded by You. In other words
this case must be treated BY .on as il
such statements had not been offered IL
evidence. Independent Of the proof 81
such statements there is no sufficient evl.
dence to justify verdict against the de-
PENDANT And if yen lind tat the state
ments, 1t made, We're made OF induced by
threats or promises, then there must be a
verdict for the defendant.
8. II you believe that the statements
were made as testified to by the witnesses
and that they were voluntarily II. de, You
are then directed to careful eoasiaera.
ton of such statements. with the other ey'
idence, to ascertain If all tie testimon,
establishes the guilt Of the defendant be-
You'd reasonable doubt. ion must keep
in mind that it is not for the defendant to
prove himself innocent. or. in etAer words
to prove that he is not guilty Or did not
commit the crime. bit the state must by
legal testimony es.ahl!s', his gait, or Ii
must stand acquitted. 1t is not encngi
to prove that John Haberly was murdered
or killed. The state mast further prove
that the defendant murdered Or unlawful
II killed him.
10. II We admit the statements by the
defendant as testified 10 be true end vol
untary, then it is trse that the defendant
was present at the she'd OF McIugh Il Ly
ons when John naberl. was struck: but
such statements do nos snow that the de-
fendant struck the blow: nor is the defen
dant indicted on account If crime com
mitted by SUCH blow. Tire indictment
charges the crime ls having been commit
ted by shooting John Hdoeri,. And Il.
the statements Of the defendant furnish
the only proof as to who fired the shots
IL they were fired. and Hahesis killed
thereby, You must believe tina. they wer,
fred by John Wentworth. And tie cues
ton as to the defendant Will he. did tn.
defendant aid or altt John Wentworth il
90 doing? II he did. then he was an nc
complice Of Wentworth and equally guilt.
with him, whatever the crime may be.
IL. Again, il We admit the statement
Of the defendant as voluntary and true
then the defendant did. after the b,ay o
Haberly was struck down III the shed
help to remove the body, either alive o
dead, to a place south Of the town. wher
il was taken by John Wentworth from tn
buggy and carried into the brush. wher
shots we're fired. Now, il you admit til
statements of the defendant as voluntary
then you are the judges Of tine truth am
value OF such statements as evidence. ant
you can accept the whole or any part o
i as true, and reject any part thereof tina
you do not believe to be true, and Ia DC
ing this it is proper for you to conside
all the surroundings AID circumstance
under which the statements were made
II. II you believe from the eyilenc
that on or about the 18th day Of Jun,
1885, in this county, one John Wentwort
unlawfllly shot and killed John Haberl.
and il you further believe that the defa:
dant with knowledge OF his guilty pm
pose aided or abetted him is SD doint
then the defendant is guilty under I'll
indictment, and the further question wi
be, of what crime is he guilty.
Is. If yon believe that Haber'y wa
killed by the blow in the shed. or died
consequence thereof, then the aefendai
Is not guilty. But, II he was struck
the shed, and befor. death resulted h
life was cut short by pistol shots III Il
brush, then yon cannot find that lie W;
killed by the blow III the shed.
IA. II Wentworth did unlawfuily shes
and kill Haberly IN the brusi1. then at
you to carefully consider all tine test
mony to find If the defendant aided {
sbetted him III SO doing. and .on M,u
remember that to justify yea iii iiIdil
that he did, you must be satisfied fro
the testimony oi such laet hayor
q reasonable doubt, and this Will lei
You to inquire what are the facts shown
that he did so. And to this end y,
should consile the fact of his presen'
there; how lie came Ia be there; how IL
assault came to be made; what assistan,
the defendant gave III removing Raber
from the shed; what his motives or re-
L =. b..